73 replies to this topic

[Heart Collector]

raspberry jam, on 29 November 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

What is it that you don't like in non-GW2 MMOs? Because, let's run through your points:

• world Every MMO has a world, and while the GW2 one is impressive, so are many other worlds.
  
• exploration Oh come on. You can explore all MMO worlds. Azeroth, for example, has much more to explore than Tyria 2.0.
  
• some facets of the combat Which ones? Apparently not finesse, individual contribution or the possibility to make sense of chaos, because you listed those as flaws. Perhaps you mean the overloaded control scheme that requires you do cursor control, camera control and facing with the same thing at the same time.
  
• jumping puzzles lol k 3d platformer
  
• dynamic events Exist in other MMOs as well. Uniquely to GW2, though, a handful of DEs actually affect the world, but go look at how much people complain about Orr and certain parts being blocked off because of DEs. Those are not a good thing.
  
• the classes (well, some of them at least) Similar classes exist in basically every MMO. Before someone starts blabbing about the mesmer being unique, it's not, it has damage, confusion and cc just like a ton of other classes in MMOs.
  
• the nature of "grouping" in the open world Granted, even though I find traditional grouping far superior, since it discourages the massive zerging that makes GW2 so damn boring in some places
  
• no sub fees lol k
  
• the crafting The crafting is utterly retarded and based on massive production of throwaway items. What exactly do you like about it?

I underlined the questions, but here are they again: what facets of combat do you like, and what exactly do you like about crafting?

The reason I ask is because you said you like GW2 but don't like MMOs (in general, I suppose you mean). I'm trying to find out why since the differences between GW2 and any generic MMO are very small.

I listed what I like about GW2 without caring if its features exist in other MMOs.

- World: It's fragmented granted but each zone has lots to see and explore. So what if every MMO has a world, so does every game out there. I just like the way Anet made this one.
- Exploration: Yeah so what? I can explore in single player RPGs like Skyrim and Gothic as well. Last time I checked WoW didn't have skill points, vistas and jumping puzzles to encourage exploration further.
- Combat: I like the fact that it's fast paced, feels satisfying and fun. The fact that it's few but more distinct abilities with multiple functions makes it more convenient that the typical tab targeting slew of 30+ skills, most of which are boring. I like the soft targeting though it does botch up sometimes. And no traditional trinity. Very important for me.
- Jumping puzzles: I won't even comment on your tone here. Suffice to say I like em because they make you think a bit and test your skills at least a little bit.
- Dynamic events: So what if they exist in other MMOs, I just said I like them here o_O
- Yeah, they do, but again I like the way Anet made the classes in this game. My favorite class ever was the feral druid in WoW, but that doesn't make GW2s classes any worse. I find them more distinctive than in WoW and more appealing - Only the druid and shadow priest really appealed to me in WoW, unlike here where all the classes apart from the warrior and maybe the necro don't appeal to me.
- Grouping: I don't disagree about the zerging aspect - but try 2-manning a champion (I'm sure you have). doable, challenging in some ways (at least the margin for error is much smaller, making it more tense) and satisfying. I haven't been in a zerg for a while since the population has thinned out somewhat and TBH I prefer it this way. Though I do think that the open world should have been a lot harder at least in certain areas of each zone in order to foster more meaningful grouping experiences and challenging play.
- Sub fees: What "lol k"? It's a valid reason, I hate a sub fee hanging over my head, it's not even worth paying every month.
- Crafting: I like the discovery pane (yeah yeah it exists in other MMOs whoopty do who cares) and convenience of it. Yeah you make lots of disposables and TBH I'd have preferred a "less is more" system with maybe an actual crafting minigame with the option to customize your crafted gears looks and names but it's still not bad. Actually cooking is the most fun as you can get inventive, unlike the usual "craft a hilt, blade and augment" routine with the other crafting profs.

Sorry if I was abrasive in some of my replies but the "lol k" responses were just asinine, and you know it.

All in all: I like the fact that I don't feel forced to group in GW2 and that I can play at my own pace and still not feel like I'm missing out. I like the fact that I can play the classes any way I want and not conform to a single restrictive role. I like the fact that there are no raids, I hated them in WoW. I like the fact that I move around in combat and not need to tab target every time I want to change my target (though I'd have prefered Tera's mouse aiming system I think). I like the fact that there's downleveling and that I can make any zone my "playground" if I want. I like the fact that the game doesn't magically change after lvl 80, whereas in WoW for example I enjoyed playing until I reached max level, which bored me to tears. I like the more "natural" way you group, where you dont compete for nodes, dont need to form a party to get things done, no killstealing etc. And I like that there's no sub fee hanging over my head like a ticking clock - it actually discourages me from playing because I feel "pressured" to log on when playing a sub game.

I don't think we're gonna agree on anything really so I'm just leaving it here. I don't want to turn this into an argument, no point. You're entitled to hating GW2 as much as I'm entitled to loving it. I know GW2 is not revolutionary, but the things it does appeal to me as a person who doesn't like traditional MMOs.

Also to answer a question you may pose before you pose it: NO, I would not have bought GW2 if it had a sub fee. I wouldn't even buy Star Citizen (its turning out to be my dream game) if Chris roberts suddenly said "I know we said 'buy to play', but we're adding a sub fee to the game when it's done". Never again.

And oddly enough, I'm a demanding gamer, even though the fact that I'm enjoying GW2 doesn't make it seem that way.

Edited by Heart Collector, 29 November 2012 - 03:18 PM.

[raspberry jam]

Heart Collector, on 29 November 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

I listed what I like about GW2 without caring if its features exist in other MMOs.

- World: It's fragmented granted but each zone has lots to see and explore. So what if every MMO has a world, so does every game out there. I just like the way Anet made this one.
- Exploration: Yeah so what? I can explore in single player RPGs like Skyrim and Gothic as well. Last time I checked WoW didn't have skill points, vistas and jumping puzzles to encourage exploration further.
- Combat: I like the fact that it's fast paced, feels satisfying and fun. The fact that it's few but more distinct abilities with multiple functions makes it more convenient that the typical tab targeting slew of 30+ skills, most of which are boring. I like the soft targeting though it does botch up sometimes. And no traditional trinity. Very important for me.
- Jumping puzzles: I won't even comment on your tone here. Suffice to say I like em because they make you think a bit and test your skills at least a little bit.
- Dynamic events: So what if they exist in other MMOs, I just said I like them here o_O
- Yeah, they do, but again I like the way Anet made the classes in this game. My favorite class ever was the feral druid in WoW, but that doesn't make GW2s classes any worse. I find them more distinctive than in WoW and more appealing - Only the druid and shadow priest really appealed to me in WoW, unlike here where all the classes apart from the warrior and maybe the necro don't appeal to me.
- Grouping: I don't disagree about the zerging aspect - but try 2-manning a champion (I'm sure you have). doable, challenging in some ways (at least the margin for error is much smaller, making it more tense) and satisfying. I haven't been in a zerg for a while since the population has thinned out somewhat and TBH I prefer it this way. Though I do think that the open world should have been a lot harder at least in certain areas of each zone in order to foster more meaningful grouping experiences and challenging play.
- Sub fees: What "lol k"? It's a valid reason, I hate a sub fee hanging over my head, it's not even worth paying every month.
- Crafting: I like the discovery pane (yeah yeah it exists in other MMOs whoopty do who cares) and convenience of it. Yeah you make lots of disposables and TBH I'd have preferred a "less is more" system with maybe an actual crafting minigame with the option to customize your crafted gears looks and names but it's still not bad. Actually cooking is the most fun as you can get inventive, unlike the usual "craft a hilt, blade and augment" routine with the other crafting profs.

Sorry if I was abrasive in some of my replies but the "lol k" responses were just asinine, and you know it.

All in all: I like the fact that I don't feel forced to group in GW2 and that I can play at my own pace and still not feel like I'm missing out. I like the fact that I can play the classes any way I want and not conform to a single restrictive role. I like the fact that there are no raids, I hated them in WoW. I like the fact that I move around in combat and not need to tab target every time I want to change my target (though I'd have prefered Tera's mouse aiming system I think). I like the fact that there's downleveling and that I can make any zone my "playground" if I want. I like the fact that the game doesn't magically change after lvl 80, whereas in WoW for example I enjoyed playing until I reached max level, which bored me to tears. I like the more "natural" way you group, where you dont compete for nodes, dont need to form a party to get things done, no killstealing etc. And I like that there's no sub fee hanging over my head like a ticking clock - it actually discourages me from playing because I feel "pressured" to log on when playing a sub game.

I don't think we're gonna agree on anything really so I'm just leaving it here. I don't want to turn this into an argument, no point. You're entitled to hating GW2 as much as I'm entitled to loving it. I know GW2 is not revolutionary, but the things it does appeal to me as a person who doesn't like traditional MMOs.

Also to answer a question you may pose before you pose it: NO, I would not have bought GW2 if it had a sub fee. I wouldn't even buy Star Citizen (its turning out to be my dream game) if Chris roberts suddenly said "I know we said 'buy to play', but we're adding a sub fee to the game when it's done". Never again.

And oddly enough, I'm a demanding gamer, even though the fact that I'm enjoying GW2 doesn't make it seem that way.

Ok, I read all that but you still didn't say what it was about other MMOs that you don't like. The only things you make clear is that you like vertical progression, which generic MMOs do pretty well, and that you don't like sub fees, which is a rather meh statement, and you know it. While there is a certain pressure involved, and while the idea to pay to play a game that you already bought is offensive, it's really no different from having to pay a fee for cable TV.

EDIT: 2-manning a champion has nothing to do with ad-hoc grouping...

I find it interesting though that you played WoW but say that you don't like MMOs. Why would you do such a thing? It's like, I don't like pizza nor pasta, let's go to an Italian restaurant.

Look, I'm not trying to make an argument out of anything, I'm merely asking what the unique thing about GW2 is that you like so much, when you don't like other MMOs. Is it, after all, just about the different type of progression (that is not really that different), and about the sub fees? I'm just trying to understand you. You're entitled to like anything you want, I'm just asking why. I'm interested.

Also, Star Citizen will probably turn out to be amazing.

Edited by raspberry jam, 29 November 2012 - 05:05 PM.

[Zhahz]

I don't understand the point of this thread.

Leveling in this game is stupidly fast and easy and I always level faster and faster the closer I get to 80.  There is TOO MUCH content to do if you try to keep up on personal story.  If you do any serious crafting you skip even more content and level even faster.  If you do dungeons along the way you level faster and skip other content.  Etc.

So, why does it matter whether it's flat or curved when it's stupidly fast and easy?

It's bad design because people can level too fast and don't spend enough time in the plethora of content designed for leveling, not because of the leveling curve style.

The leveling content is very good in this game, the exploration factor is good, the dungeons are bleh but alternate content, you get xp for PvPing, and so on.  You could level half as fast in GW2 and you would still not do all of the content available for leveling - which IMO is how this game should've been setup since it lacks endgame-wise and you can do anything you want in PvP at any level.

Quote

I agree, the leveling in guild wars 2 is a mistake.

I would argue against that since it's some of the best leveling mechanics in MMORPGs.  If you don't like to level characters, why play RPGs or MMORPGs?  It boggles the mind.

The real mistake most MMORPGs make are trying to be PvP games (when RPGs are all about PvE), trying to be solo games, trying to be everything for everybody.  MMORPGs should be focused on quality group-based PvE, which is what makes them unique and special, and let PvP be the realm of online FPS and other genres/games way more suited to PvP (check out Forge if you want MMORPG PvP without the PvE), and let soloists stick to single player games where they belong.

Most MMORPGs try to be everything and it ultimately leads to fragmented and upset players.

[Heart Collector]

raspberry jam, on 29 November 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

Ok, I read all that but you still didn't say what it was about other MMOs that you don't like. The only things you make clear is that you like vertical progression, which generic MMOs do pretty well, and that you don't like sub fees, which is a rather meh statement, and you know it. While there is a certain pressure involved, and while the idea to pay to play a game that you already bought is offensive, it's really no different from having to pay a fee for cable TV.

EDIT: 2-manning a champion has nothing to do with ad-hoc grouping...

I find it interesting though that you played WoW but say that you don't like MMOs. Why would you do such a thing? It's like, I don't like pizza nor pasta, let's go to an Italian restaurant.

Look, I'm not trying to make an argument out of anything, I'm merely asking what the unique thing about GW2 is that you like so much, when you don't like other MMOs. Is it, after all, just about the different type of progression (that is not really that different), and about the sub fees? I'm just trying to understand you. You're entitled to like anything you want, I'm just asking why. I'm interested.

Also, Star Citizen will probably turn out to be amazing.

Time to sink my teeth into this one! I thought we'd be arguing but thankfully not I'll just say before I start that the reasons I don't like MMOs are purely subjective and not necessarily flaws in the games themselves.

Basically... I don't like traditional MMOs, and playing WoW made me realise that. I like the concept of MMOs, but the execution usually doesn't agree with me - plus I'm not really a social gamer as I view videogames as my "alone time". Which means that I don't want to feel oblidged to group in order to advance my character, both prior to and post max level. Plus I don't really have the inclination nor the luxury to schedule my playtime, something that traditional MMOs demand (and I wouldn't want to let people down at the last minute because my buddies decided to go out for a drink for example). And I didn't like the way end game was in WoW. I loved its leveling process even though the static, tab-targeting combat was a bit of a turn off (but less prominent on my feral druid) but the max level stuff just didn't appeal to me at all. I didn't like raids, BGs were fun for a bit but got boring, didn't like arenas... Nothing really worked for me in its endgame.

GW2 appealed to me because of what was promised by ANet in their marketing campaign and has kept me interested because of the things I mentioned. Yeah other MMOs do that stuff and many do it better... But GW2s design just kind of works for me. Sorry I'm not being any more specific but it's late here and I'm kinda typing this with my eyes half closed But if you watch Angry Joe's review of GW2, it pretty much reflects what I think of the game - though I would definitely not give it anywhere near a 10/10 even though I consider the game great value for money (I think an indulgent 8/10 would be my score). I guess you could say that the accessibilty, the ease at which you can hop into and out of the game, the fast combat combined with the classes I love, and the intuitive way teaming up works in the open world would sum up my thoughts.

I will get bored of the game eventually, but it happens with all games soooner or later. Either way I've gotten my money's worth.

As for p2p I'm standing by the fact that I really don't like it. I'm not a TV subscriber either and will never be, I try to run as few bills as possible and TV is much less worth a subscription than a game in my eyes. I don't even have a mobile phone sub, I use prepaid cards since I don't spend more than 20 Euro a month on my mobile phone.

Hope I cleared things up a bit for ya!

[marvalis]

Zhahz, on 29 November 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

I don't understand the point of this thread.

It is to discuss the perceived costs and benefits of different leveling schemes under certain circumstances. Maybe you should give it some thought if you don't understand it.

Zhahz, on 29 November 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

Leveling in this game is stupidly fast and easy and I always level faster and faster the closer I get to 80.  There is TOO MUCH content to do if you try to keep up on personal story.  If you do any serious crafting you skip even more content and level even faster.  If you do dungeons along the way you level faster and skip other content.  Etc.

My first post explored the idea that a different leveling curve would slow down leveling as you become higher level.

Zhahz, on 29 November 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

So, why does it matter whether it's flat or curved when it's stupidly fast and easy?

As you explained yourself, the leveling curve will not change the total amount of time you spend leveling. I clearly stated this in my first post (it is listed as one of the constants). However, that does not mean that there will not be any effects from changing the curve. From what you say we can derive that, how shorter the time to level to 80, how less important the shape of the leveling curve will become over time. As it is right now, leveling takes 80+ hours. This is not an insignificant amount of time so yes, the leveling curve will influence gameplay. If you want to know how, perhaps you should read the thread.

Zhahz, on 29 November 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

You could level half as fast in GW2 and you would still not do all of the content available for leveling - which IMO is how this game should've been setup since it lacks endgame-wise and you can do anything you want in PvP at any level.

You could spread out the content over more levels, or you could add slower and longer leveling or you could just add that content as maximum level zones. One of the problems with the current system, as you point out rightfully, is that content becomes obsolete too fast. Horizontal progression instead of vertical progression is exactly the thing that is going to prevent this from happening. Ironically that means adding less levels and not more (contrary to your intuition).

For clarity sake, here is an attempt to explain what I understand by vertical and horizontal progression:  progression.jpg   73.74K   5 downloads
The obvious benefit of model 2 is that any new player can immediately hop on any new branches that are being released after completing the tutorial area. In model 1 players have to 'catch up' with older players before they can access new content. This does not matter if you see the game as a single player experience. It does however matter if you want the new players and old players to be able to play together.

Zhahz, on 29 November 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

If you don't like to level characters, why play RPGs or MMORPGs?  It boggles the mind.

There are plenty of reason to like MMO's:
* They are social games (you play with other players)
* I like the type of game where a team of players fights against a computer controlled opponent. I am not a big fan of PvP (I play no single player shooters)
* I like to run dungeons with a group of people.
* I like the fantasy world and setting
* I like skill based games and the depth that it brings when these are combined together. One of the influences for GW1 was magic the gathering, a card game I have enjoyed playing too. (I generally prefer turned based strategy games over real time games.)
* I like the third person camera, the 3 dimensional world, etc. (compared to a platform game or another game type).
* Character customization, planning your character build and skills, and dressing up my character (whoever said adults don't like to play with dolls lmao).
* I like gaming, in general.


I dont play online multiplayer games to get a fix of stat-crack or to live a pipe dream of ever increasing levels (go play diabolo if you want that, seriously.)

There is a difference between single player games (RPG) and multiplayer game (MMORPG). In single players you can do whatever you want (infinite vertical progression if that is what you want), but in multi-player games you have to take into account different people. That means you can never do the same in multi-player than you would in single player. One of the main issues will be vertical progression in these multiplayer games, as it determines how, when and where players will be able to play together. Multi-player games simply do not have to be constrained by single player RPG conventions.

Zhahz, on 29 November 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

The real mistake most MMORPGs make are trying to be PvP games (when RPGs are all about PvE), trying to be solo games, trying to be everything for everybody.  MMORPGs should be focused on quality group-based PvE, which is what makes them unique and special, and let PvP be the realm of online FPS and other genres/games way more suited to PvP (check out Forge if you want MMORPG PvP without the PvE), and let soloists stick to single player games where they belong.

Ironically you are demanding (at least to some degree) that multiplayer games should be more like single player RPG's. So the same is true for you what you blame on others.

Edited by marvalis, 30 November 2012 - 02:00 AM.

[raspberry jam]

Heart Collector, on 29 November 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Time to sink my teeth into this one! I thought we'd be arguing but thankfully not I'll just say before I start that the reasons I don't like MMOs are purely subjective and not necessarily flaws in the games themselves.

Basically... I don't like traditional MMOs, and playing WoW made me realise that. I like the concept of MMOs, but the execution usually doesn't agree with me - plus I'm not really a social gamer as I view videogames as my "alone time". Which means that I don't want to feel oblidged to group in order to advance my character, both prior to and post max level. Plus I don't really have the inclination nor the luxury to schedule my playtime, something that traditional MMOs demand (and I wouldn't want to let people down at the last minute because my buddies decided to go out for a drink for example). And I didn't like the way end game was in WoW. I loved its leveling process even though the static, tab-targeting combat was a bit of a turn off (but less prominent on my feral druid) but the max level stuff just didn't appeal to me at all. I didn't like raids, BGs were fun for a bit but got boring, didn't like arenas... Nothing really worked for me in its endgame.

GW2 appealed to me because of what was promised by ANet in their marketing campaign and has kept me interested because of the things I mentioned. Yeah other MMOs do that stuff and many do it better... But GW2s design just kind of works for me. Sorry I'm not being any more specific but it's late here and I'm kinda typing this with my eyes half closed But if you watch Angry Joe's review of GW2, it pretty much reflects what I think of the game - though I would definitely not give it anywhere near a 10/10 even though I consider the game great value for money (I think an indulgent 8/10 would be my score). I guess you could say that the accessibilty, the ease at which you can hop into and out of the game, the fast combat combined with the classes I love, and the intuitive way teaming up works in the open world would sum up my thoughts.

I will get bored of the game eventually, but it happens with all games soooner or later. Either way I've gotten my money's worth.

As for p2p I'm standing by the fact that I really don't like it. I'm not a TV subscriber either and will never be, I try to run as few bills as possible and TV is much less worth a subscription than a game in my eyes. I don't even have a mobile phone sub, I use prepaid cards since I don't spend more than 20 Euro a month on my mobile phone.

Hope I cleared things up a bit for ya!

Yep, you did clear things up thanks. I played WoW too, for quite a while, the thing that made me go over to GW1 was that I heard that long distance travel was for free in that game... No more running to a flight master and paying to go some place, or even worse, waiting for a ship lol.

Just like with you, playing WoW made me dislike generic/traditional MMOs... My feeling for them has been described as irrational hatred, but when I explain why I feel like I do, the response is often "ok, so it's a rational hatred..." lol

Anyway, I understand what you like about GW2 (I might not agree, but I do understand!) and I'm happy to hear that you like the game. I gave it a 8/10 too (before Nov 15; as of now I'd give it a 6 or 7). I have to say, much of that score is based on the amazing art resources: the highly detailed world (other games have more details, maybe, but there is a lot in GW2 too!), the beauty of it, the music...
For me (though not for you!), when I started playing GW2, there was a massive disappointment because to me, it was just like coming back to WoW, except that the graphics were better. That's what I meant when I said they should not have said that it's an MMO for people who don't like MMOs. But, yeah, on the other hand. If you dislike MMOs in the way that you do, then I guess it is the MMO for people who don't like MMOs...

[Heart Collector]

raspberry jam, on 30 November 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Yep, you did clear things up thanks. I played WoW too, for quite a while, the thing that made me go over to GW1 was that I heard that long distance travel was for free in that game... No more running to a flight master and paying to go some place, or even worse, waiting for a ship lol.

Just like with you, playing WoW made me dislike generic/traditional MMOs... My feeling for them has been described as irrational hatred, but when I explain why I feel like I do, the response is often "ok, so it's a rational hatred..." lol

Anyway, I understand what you like about GW2 (I might not agree, but I do understand!) and I'm happy to hear that you like the game. I gave it a 8/10 too (before Nov 15; as of now I'd give it a 6 or 7). I have to say, much of that score is based on the amazing art resources: the highly detailed world (other games have more details, maybe, but there is a lot in GW2 too!), the beauty of it, the music...
For me (though not for you!), when I started playing GW2, there was a massive disappointment because to me, it was just like coming back to WoW, except that the graphics were better. That's what I meant when I said they should not have said that it's an MMO for people who don't like MMOs. But, yeah, on the other hand. If you dislike MMOs in the way that you do, then I guess it is the MMO for people who don't like MMOs...

I was out of town so I didn't see this until now... But yeah I'm glad we can agree to disagree It's what makes life interesting after all! I can understand GW1 fans being upset of course, I didn't play the first game (though I'm contemplating picking it up when my financial situation is more stable) but from what I've understood GW2 is too big a departure from the "roots" than die-hard fans of the first would want. As a Gothic fan believe me I know the disappointment (I just don't like it when people whine too much).

Yeah I'm happy with the game, but as I play on I do find more flaws. They don't really spoil the game for me as I'm content with its core (as explained previously), but I do hope they eventually manage to fix the most important flaws, take the game in a stable direction and have it carve out its own niche - in the way that (from what I understood) GW1 did. I really don't want to see the game fail and shut down!

As for WoW... Well I appreciate it for what it is (a really great game in its genre) even though I don't like what it offers any more and I actually don't want it to "die", I'm content with retaining the good memories I have of it and not focusing on the bad. What did annoy me though was that it got so damn big that it really stifled creativity in the MMO genre (Even some WoW devs acknowledge this to their credit), with devs/publishers trying too much to either copy or "kill" it and ultimately failing either because their "copy" couldn't compete with the already existing juggernaut, or by simply failing by trying to be different for the sake of being different.

Anyway, I'm cautiously optimistic about GW2's future. ANet seems to really care about their game and I believe that they are not sitting on their sales laurels (they did earn a crapload in August-September!) and are actively trying to improve it - though the direction may not appeal to many people - which is understandable.

[raspberry jam]

Heart Collector, on 03 December 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

I was out of town so I didn't see this until now... But yeah I'm glad we can agree to disagree It's what makes life interesting after all! I can understand GW1 fans being upset of course, I didn't play the first game (though I'm contemplating picking it up when my financial situation is more stable) but from what I've understood GW2 is too big a departure from the "roots" than die-hard fans of the first would want. As a Gothic fan believe me I know the disappointment (I just don't like it when people whine too much).

Yeah I'm happy with the game, but as I play on I do find more flaws. They don't really spoil the game for me as I'm content with its core (as explained previously), but I do hope they eventually manage to fix the most important flaws, take the game in a stable direction and have it carve out its own niche - in the way that (from what I understood) GW1 did. I really don't want to see the game fail and shut down!

As for WoW... Well I appreciate it for what it is (a really great game in its genre) even though I don't like what it offers any more and I actually don't want it to "die", I'm content with retaining the good memories I have of it and not focusing on the bad. What did annoy me though was that it got so damn big that it really stifled creativity in the MMO genre (Even some WoW devs acknowledge this to their credit), with devs/publishers trying too much to either copy or "kill" it and ultimately failing either because their "copy" couldn't compete with the already existing juggernaut, or by simply failing by trying to be different for the sake of being different.

Anyway, I'm cautiously optimistic about GW2's future. ANet seems to really care about their game and I believe that they are not sitting on their sales laurels (they did earn a crapload in August-September!) and are actively trying to improve it - though the direction may not appeal to many people - which is understandable.

Well, GW1 was... Imagine an old school pen & paper RPG. The feeling of playing those was fantastic. And MMOs try to reproduce that feeling, but IMO they (including GW2) fail pretty hard. There are three main reasons for this: first, since they need to "keep" people playing, they create a reward structure of a kind that would be (and is) ridiculous in any other type of game, including the pen & paper RPGs that were their main inspiration (I guess they never figured out how to actually make MMOs actually fun, so they resort to tricks like that). Second, even though you, being a hero, should reasonably be a relatively unique character, the world in basically any MMO consists of, apart from enemies, at least 95% players and at most 5% NPCs. Third, a pen & paper RPG was all about the people you played with. In most MMOs though, it feels like you play side by side with people.

GW1 didn't quite do away with those two, but it did go for a good compromise: After a quite short while, you hit a hard cap in vertical progression. From that moment on, you could still change your character to fit circumstances, and there was still a lot of capabilities to learn, but you'd never grow upwards. That sounds horrible at first to many people, but then you realize the beauty of it. Every time you expand your capabilities through horizontal progression, you get more choices, can customize your own gameplay to be as you want it to be! Certain challenges became a game of bringing the right tools for solving the problem - but those tools were never more powerful than any other, just more suited for this situation. So that entire thing - horizontal progression based around your build - became a way for players to both adapt the game to their own style of playing it, as well as often being a strategic challenge, a sort of puzzle where you made sure that some members of your team had some necessary skill or similar.

The second issue was dealt with by having lobby areas - cities, towns, villages and the like, peaceful areas, shared between all players. There you could meet up with friends, recruit adventurers to your party, trade, or just hang out and talk to people. All other areas, the places where the actual game was played, were instanced! When you went through the city gates, it was just you and your little party. You would never see a 30-man zerg rush past killing everything in its way, you would never see a dozen other people doing the same thing you did. Sure, it was all an illusion, but all games are illusions anyway, right? The end result was still that you felt that you and your party was unique. Even if that party consisted of strangers, there was still a feeling of that that group was it.

Which brings me around to point three, the focus on the team. Sure, a lot of MMOs have that - in instances. In the open world, you're on your own most of the time. GW2 solved this in a seemingly good way: people can, in a way, group up just by being near each other. Everyone gets loot and xp anyway, so there's no reason to not help each other. Unfortunately, this mostly doesn't work: since there is no attachment between players, ad-hoc groups are fueled by self-interest and are broken up as easily as they are formed. The exception is of course massive zergs farming some event or the other. GW1 though, solved it by the points already mentioned above. Instancing created a feeling of that your party were actually your only allies, and the skill system forced you to rely on your teammates to do what you can't (simply because they brought different capabilities than you), and in return do things for them that they can't (basically allowing everyone to feel strong/like a hero).

GW1 was all about the feeling of playing, the enjoyment and fun you had while you played it. The rewards, while of course nice, were less important. Generic MMOs completely fail to be about the gameplay, and resort to being about rewards - that unfortunately includes GW2. And I think that that's why so many GW1 fans don't like it.

I don't want GW2 to fail either. I would like to see it improve, though - a lot. So while disagreeing, we do agree on some things! I just think that the room for improvement in GW2 is bigger than you think it is...

[Mr Shrimp]

So basically anet's not making more level 80 zones because its too easy to get to 80?

I dont really see a relation between the leveling curve and the level of the areas. The number of starting zones depends on the number of races, not related to the leveling curve at all. When they decide to release a new high level area they probably consider that alot of people are at max level and want another area that rewards that level of loot and karma, not the leveling curve and time that it takes a player to get there.

[Heart Collector]

raspberry jam, on 03 December 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

<σνιπ>

I don't want GW2 to fail either. I would like to see it improve, though - a lot. So while disagreeing, we do agree on some things! I just think that the room for improvement in GW2 is bigger than you think it is...

I edited out the bulk of the post for brevity's sake... But I can definitely see where you're coming from much better now. I must say I love the idea of horizontal progression myself (despite the fact that I enjoy leveling in RPGs), in typical MMOs I do not enjoy being max leveled for the reason that it's where your character truly stops developing. Now I'm prepared for this in GW2, but I will still have a lot of exploring to do, so I will have something to keep me playing my lvl 80 when I get there. Now from what I've understood the game doesn't change too dramatically at 80 - which in my eyes is a good thing, as the max level experience in WoW was completely different (and in a bad way IMO) to the leveling experience.

As for the ad-hoc groups: I like the system since you're not competing with others in PvE, and since the world is persistent and not instanced like in GW1 I think it was the best way to go... However I believe that the main issue is the ease of the content. With some exceptions (e.g. champions) the open world stuff is very easy. I think that if there were certain zones where being in a group is necessary no matter where you are (a bit like WoW's group areas back in the day, dunno if they still have them), the development of attachment between players would have been better fostered. I guess it's the price to pay for a persistant world.

Though another possible way to "fix" this would be to create randomized, very difficult mini-dungeons throughout the game world, meant for groups. A bit like fractals, or maybe akin to the random minidungeons in games like Torchlight, or Diablo 3. They could appear randomly in an area, much like dynamic events, and stay on for some time (say an hour), and once players complete them they close down for them. Obviously if a player entered an instance at, say 1 minute before it closes down, they would remain in it until they leave - and there could be repair dudes and merchants there to facilitate players. Dunno, just throwing an idea out there

And I agree with you SO MUCH about the reward-driven mentality... I love getting loot and rewards in games but I never see it as a goal in itself... I see it for what it should be, a reward and acknowledgement for completing challenging (hopefully!) content. It's one of the things that put me off WoW, and one of the things that's worrying me about GW2's direction (with ascended items). Still I can get very decent stuff in the game just by playing the way I want to, so until the power creep actually starts I'm OK with the ascended stuff - for now.

That been said I don't mind "hardcore" players getting better stuff than me, as long as it doesn't put me into too much of a disadvantage (like WoW where only gear makes or breaks you - or at least it did until MoP, dunno whats changed). Obviously a player who plays more and better deserves better stuff. But when I am hopelessly outclassed and essentially "gated" out of content is where I draw the line. I'm not too bothered with the fractals "agony" gating though (again, for now) as I'm not that interested in doing this dungeon. Maybe just a couple of runs to take a peek, but no more. I can understand peoples concerns with them, but it's still a bit early to judge.

Finally thanks for being reasonable and taking the time to respond to me with your lengthy posts - I love chatting with people who are not happy with the game when they are willing to actually formulate an argument rather than bleat something akin to "GW2 sucks" in every second thread (and there are many here who do just that)

[raspberry jam]

Heart Collector, on 03 December 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

<cut for brevity>

Same to you, some of the people here who do like GW2 viciously attack anyone who sees problems with the game, it's so refreshing to see someone who is just here to talk about what they like.

Anyway, I see it in the exactly opposite way (lol): when you are done leveling, is when you actually start developing! I see leveling as starting out with a nerfed character, and the sooner you get to max level, the sooner you get rid of the nerf. Development, for me, is not just growing stronger, but growing more capable - as in, being able to do different things. It's how it works in real life! Of course you can develop a certain real-life skill to higher "levels", but what actually makes you stronger is that you become more diverse.

True enough, GW2 doesn't change when you hit 80. While that is not so good news for me, it is good news for you.

The grouping question is tricky, yes... On one hand, GW2's solution causes zerging and locusting. On the other hand, it's still better than how it is in WoW, where you'd queue up for a boss and had to compete for resource nodes. That you see other players (which takes away from the feeling that you are the hero/es that things depend on) is also a price to pay for the persistent world. IMO that is a worse price... But it might be that I'm spoiled by instancing, haha.

I really like your "mini-dungeon" idea! In fact, it is kind of like how I imagined GW2's dynamic events system to be before release - procedurally generated content popping up in the world, things that would remain and affect the world until defeated by players. Not only would it cause people to come together, like you suggested, but it would also feel as if you actually affected the world (which you actually also would do, of course, even if in a limited way, it's more than most current-day MMOs do).
This doesn't have to be limited to dungeons. What about a city-type non-all-friendly area, where NPCs go about their daily lives... and then suddenly gangs of bandits start terrorizing the area. The only way to root them out is to kill the bandit leader, which can hide out in any house in the city... So players could run around looking for hints all over town, only to converge on the correct house, where the final battle would play out. A small part of that would need to be scripted, but most of it could be generated... For example, "looking for hints" could involve bandit under-bosses, who would constantly go between the bandit leader's house and the individual bandit gangs, carrying orders. These underbosses can be killed, in which case the gang wouldn't receive the order and would be neutralized for a short while, until a new underboss spawns... Or, they can be followed to find out where the main boss is! The tricky part, of course, is that you can't come too close when you are following them, or they will turn around and fight you.
Also, none of this should be told to the players. Let them come up with it on their own!

EDIT: What I mean with "it could be generated" is that you can use the same pattern for other things. The underbosses are basically information carriers. It just happen to be so that you can follow them in this case... But imagine this: you are going into a dungeon, and you are faced with a group of enemies. After fighting a while, one of them realizes that these adventurers are too strong and so he runs away. He is now an information carrier, and when he reaches another group of enemies, he'll tell them that you are there, basically raising an alarm! That means that if you kill this guy before he runs away, the alarm will never be raised... This can be done using AI roles instead of scripting everything.

Mm, I don't see why a player who plays better deserves better stuff. More impressive stuff, sure, flashy and shiny and telling everyone exactly how pro the player that has that stuff is, that is all fine. But better? As in doing more damage or having more protection or so on? Nah. Surely, if he's that good, he doesn't need the stronger gear! MMOs are the only genre where playing more means it gets easier instead of harder...  Basically removing more challenge the more you play. There is no reason for it to be that way.

Edited by raspberry jam, 04 December 2012 - 01:57 PM.

[Mekkakat]

I'll be happy when leveling is a thing of the past.

[Kymeric]

I admit, I rolled my eyes when I read the title of this thread.  I hate the experience in games where the higher you level, the farther and farther away the next level seems.

Then I read the OP, and the benefit of a curve makes a lot of sense.

The problem is that when you say "leveling curve", there are a lot of games with dreadful grind that immediately spring to mind.  They speed you through the lower level zones, and then you spend days and weeks in the last zones grinding out your last 20% of levels.  It's not that there is more content between level 60 and 80, it's just that the xp requirements become so astronomically high that you have to spend time grinding to level, even though you used to be able to just wander from quest to quest in your lower levels.

Allods had a very straight leveling curve early in its life.  One of the things people trumpeted on the forums was that it was unique among F2P games in that you could level easily, without grind.  Then, at some point they reworked the game to funnel people toward the cash shop with a vengeance, and the higher level you were the more you had to grind in addition to questing in order to level.  The curve became a lot more curvy.

The key to understanding how a curve could be more helpful than a straight line is to understand that a curve doesn't necessarily have to mean more grind.

If the content volume follows the leveling curve, it won't be onerous.

Example: If we were to shift GW2 to a typical F2P leveling curve, all the zones would remain the same.  The level 15-25 zones would still be level 15-25, and the level 70-80 still be level 70-80.  We would, however, increase the XP requirement exponentially, so that completing a level 15-25 zone would get you enough experience to level from 15-25, but you would have to earn ten times the equivalent of doing a level 70-80 zone to get from 70-80.  The closer you get to 80, the more you have to repeat content over and over to level.  Now we've turned GW2 into the proverbial Korean Grinder.  Instead of 120 hours to max level, you will now have to play many times that.  And of course, in our typical F2P model, there are a lot of ways to speed that process up available to you for some real life cash in the cash shop.

Alternative Example:  If, however, we go with a player friendly leveling curve, we need to rework the zones.  Level 70-80 zones all become level 80 zones.  Level 40-70 become 60-70.  Level 20-40 become 30-60.  Level 1-20 become 1-30.  Then we adjust experience so you only have to do one 1-20 zones worth of content to get to 20, but you'll require more and more zones of content to as you get higher in level.  All of this is carefully reworked so that you are spending the exact same time you would spend in GW2 now to get to 80, you just spend a lot less time at low levels, and a lot more at higher levels.  Combine that with the adjustment that you get level appropriate gear from doing content above 2/3rds of your level, and suddenly endgame is over half the map, instead of two zones.

The odometer doesn't click over as fast at later levels, but there's no increase in grind to get those later levels, either.  The only thing we miss out on is seeing that number bump every 90 minutes.  In exchange, we get a more active open world, and a lot more choice as to where to play in later levels.

So many people complain about the lack of starter areas in MMORPGs.  People were forever clamoring for race-specific starting areas in Rift.  It's such a very short-sighted demand, though.  Why have developers pour so much time into areas we blip through in the first hour or two of play?  It makes more sense to do everything possible to give more and more content the farther you go in level, and a leveling curve that doesn't simply rely on astronomical experience requirements can do that.

So thanks to the OP.  It's pretty rare that forum posts change anyone's opinion, but you have definitely changed mine.

[Kymeric]

Also, gotta say I'm a bit disappointed with the reaction to RJ here.

I'm all for pointing out the people who seem to just hate GW2, no matter what ANet does, and asking them to go find something else to do with their time.  There are people who clearly have no clue about the vision ANet presented in the time leading up to launch, and stick around moaning about how GW2 needs a bunch of things added to it that run completely contrary to that vision.

In my experience, RJ isn't one of them.  As someone who both loves GW2 but also sees things that could be improved, I wish, as a community that we could distinguish between the trolls who just hang around to bad mouth the game and those who simply have different ideas about how a game could work.

Being vocal, confident, sometimes sharp-tongued, and having unusual ideas does not equate to "hater".